Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
I doubt he is that much into MADness.
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
I doubt he is that much into MADness.
Well Im sure theres loads more reasons than that some of which I can't think off but thier support for unpopular tyrants has certainly been one of themQuote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
I really doubt there is such a thing as being beyond the point of no return. Germans and Jews can talk to each other today, Russians and Germans also... sure that may have took some time, but apologys and stopping off the negative treatment will start to make the hate go away eventually. You need to somewhat work with popular opinion in the ME and ride the crap storm you created, once you are truely not working as thier enemy you will soon enough convince enough people and outlive those that cannot be saved...Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Which is why I put my disclaimer in there....Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Americans should more accurately have claimed to save Asia from Japan or Europe from a future Russian dominance than that speaking German crap I hear...
Yes, and plenty a Russian still despise or mildly dislike the what we still call "The Fritz". Those may not be the brightest individauls, but the bitterness remains, especially among those who have experienced the horrors.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
Now, with Jews I have no experience on that matter, but I am certain there are at least "some" of them who share the same sentiment. I do not think it was a coincidence that the Ehud Barak-Angela Merkel meeting was the first of its kind...
Yes, and plenty a Russian still despise or mildly dislike the what we still call "The Fritz". Those may not be the brightest individauls, but the bitterness remains, especially among those who have experienced the horrors.
Now, with Jews I have no experience on that matter, but I am certain there are at least "some" of them who share the same sentiment. I do not think it was a coincidence that the Ehud Barak-Angela Merkel meeting was the first of its kind...
Do not get me wrong the hatred is not completely eradicated, I do remember some Israeli youths burning German flags when Mr Scroehder (sp?!) visited a while back... though im fairly sure there was an element of youth's just like rioting you mentioned in another topic...
But the hatred is dieing off, most of the Russians, Jews and Germans alive back then are dead, very few remain and not all of them have the hatred. Those from generations on can learn the hatred somewhat but it never passes down as fully and the hatred never has any personal events fueling it, only stories to motivate the hatred. Basically my point is without continuing negative actions hatred will eventually go away... it may take a few generations for it to literally die out but you can help make it happen...
Who cares? I want as many advantages on the international stage as I can get. America is a fellow member of my military alliance and a friend, Iran is hostile to my interests in the region including, but not limited to, Israel. Ergo, I desire as little power for them as possible. The world isn't fair, and the Chamberlains of the world who think it ought to be will be trampled into the dirt by the much smarter Machiavellians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
See, I am debating that point within myself. I know that most kids in their early teens in Russia passionately hate Germans. But those persons happen to not be very bright either... Since I do not live in Russia year-round, I am not certain how that individuals at late adolescence feel about it. In any case, I know that almost all grown adults today do not dislike Germany at all, not blaming the mistakes of the past on the general populace of Germany today (although we do view Germans as rather "cold" in temperament).Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
So I am still wondering if that German-loathing is a sign of teenage foolishness or if it is a new trend... I am guessing it is more likely to be the first, as most of today's adults certainly did not have a favourable opinion of Germany in the 50s though 70s, when most of them were born, under USSR.
Sorry for taking this off track :sweatdrop:
I can just about remember being 6,7 or 8 and having a very very mild dislike of Germans simply because of the world wars (I was too stupid at this point to realise WW1 was not thier fault) I think this is probably similar to what these rather stupid Russian adolescents you refer to think like (although I was always fairly peaceful so thiers isn't as mild) thier probably at a similar intellectual level to the 8 year old Grizz. If im right and its along a similar level it is probably something these teens will grow out of and assuming no new German Russian tensions arise the thing will slowly die off even in the minds of angry teens as it will just be too long ago...
As an example of it dieing off the younger stupid Grizz never really had a problem with the French despite our huge history of wars.... theres some jokey rivalry between the French and the English but i think you would struggle to find a Frenchman and an Englsihman who would hate each other for thier nationality... because the history simply isn't recent enough...
Ohh and don't worry about the topic diversion... I think we stopped talking about Ahmadinejad possible Jewish ancestory a page or two ago...
certainly true in poland.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
older poles have a casual racism towards jews, and a very particular xenophobia towards russia and germany.
younger poles are globe-trotting pragmatists with limited ties to rural catholicism, so they just smile tolerantly at the jewish remarks of their seniors, and while a definite distrust of russia and germany persists, the tales of starvation, executions and ghettos are second hand and thus the 'memory' less embittering.
The problem with Ahmadinejad getting nukes is that if he does indeed get them, the Saudis will also begin a nuclear weapons program. After them, Egypt will most likely follow. Nukes will spread like plague in the most volatile region of the planet, and that is not good news. It's not about the U.S. or Israel, it's about that whole region getting armed to the teeth with nukes, ready to slug it out at a moment's notice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
This is all fine and dandy - you are correct if we restrict our scope just to these recent years. However, with history in mind, it is Israel and United States who are responsible for the current situation. Unfortunately, Israel sometime ago decided it would be splendid if they had their own atomics. US found out about it, but kept quiet. Nuclear Iran will not provoke as many in the Middle East today than Nuclear Israel provoked when it started its own program. The (perhaps) unintentional hypocrisy of your post is simply comical, rvg. Change “Ahmadinejad” to “Israel”, remove the later reference to Israel, and voila!Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
US was shockingly hypocritical yet unsurprisingly predictable in its response to the Israeli nuclear program. Now the time of payback began, and to deny Iran their right to atomics is merely piling up on America’s burden of hypocrisy. Sure, I hate to see them get their paws on atomics. But this is the cruel justice, the anticipated retribution for the past actions. Once Israel, the sole adversary of the Muslim Middle East obtain something, someone is sure to want that “something” for themselves as well.
I am not personally condemning Iran, Israel or America. I could care less. They all have their own interests, and international politics is a cruel, hypocritical and unjust place. What I am however doing, is pointing out that US and Israel should not be feign astonishment, for they brought this on themselves. The weak response to DPRK fission programme was hardly helpful either.
Let's think why though. Israel - alone in a region full of nations trying to destroy it. Iran - one of those nations. A simplistic, but truthful, analysis of the situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Perhaps you should care more. Nuclear armed Iran is just as dangerous to Russia as it is to Israel. Today, they are on good terms with Russia, but who knows what happens tomorrow. Maybe Ahmadinejad backed by nukes will decide to resurrect Greater Persia and make a move against Azerbaijan or Turkmenistan. Russia stands as much to lose from nuclear armed Iran as Israel does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Let's think why though. Israel - alone in a region full of nations trying to destroy it. Iran - one of those nations. A simplistic, but truthful, analysis of the situation.
One wonders the relative military strength between the nations and one also wonders how many nations in the middle east threaten Israel militarily.
well, maybe at the time the other nations were a threat.
That's kind of the point. If Israel doesn't have the ability to :daisy: them all up at once, then it itself is :daisy:.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
But Israel had nukes since the mid-60s, and Iran under the Shah was an ally of Israel.Quote:
Let's think why though. Israel - alone in a region full of nations trying to destroy it. Iran - one of those nations. A simplistic, but truthful, analysis of the situation.
That doesn't change the fact that every other Arab nation was quite willing to drive Israel into the sea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Azathoth
Hell If Israel needs nukes to combat its enemies than what about the Iranians ?!Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
On the one side you have a bunch of fairly poorly equipped forces divided in opinion, on the other side you have two of the most powerful military's in the world...
If anyone was asked (from a purely mathmatical POV) which side needed defensive nukes more in that equation the overwhelming answer would be Iran...
well, maybe at the time the other nations were a threat.
My point is more along the lines of...
If you consider Israel's position in the 60's bad enough to need defensive nukes (by looking at the military strength of her enemies) then surely you can see the definite need for Iran to have defensive nukes (America + Israel = outside of Russia and China no one could put up much resistance AFAIK)
The only thing those other countries could possibly do is threaten them back with Nukes... which is porbably what the Iranians are thinking...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Good thing you put "simplistic", because if you did not... :laugh4:
For one, Iran is not merely a hound going after a hare. Israel is by no means a weak power, and it is not exactly a peaceful country that minds its own business while the bad guys keep attacking it. There should be no justification for further nuclear proliferation. None. Because when you begin acknowledging "exceptions", things happen. Not positive "things" either. The more nations have atomics, the more factors are created. The more factors, the higher probability of a nuclear combat.
First Israel obtained a fission device. Then goes Iran, not to be overpowered by its mortal enemy. Then goes Saudi Arabia, because it is wary of both and has the funds. Then goes Syria, because they too hate Israel, because they have long yearned for nuclear capabilities, because DPRK is aiding them. Then goes Egypt because they simply cannot stand the thought of being the only strong power without atomics, driven by their nationalism. And if Saddam was still in power, Iraq would already have an arsenal of atomics. There goes rvg's logic, which is very much correct and probable.
Now what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
I did not mean that I do not care in absolute terms. No, I simply do not care who is right or wrong, and who wins or loses. I have no passionate stance on this. As Regan remarked on Iran-Iraq War - “Can’t they all just lose?!?”. True, Iran is certainly more unstable, but they also are slower to Russia than US or Israel. I do not see much in it for my nation if US gains yet more influence in the Middle East.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Uh-huh. So the only justification needed to obtain some fission munitions is to be an underdog? For one, Israel is not an underdog and it does not live under a probable threat of a united Arab attack. Otherwise, it can take any of the nations one-by-one, albeit at a heavy economic cost.
But if Israel was to publicly surrender its atomics, it may have well defused some tensions, and once possessing the infrastructure to produce fission or even fusion weapons, Israel could restart the production should tension escalate or an Arab nation decides to grab hold of nuclear weapons anyways. Creating the Piles and waiting for the enriched product may take some time, but it is highly unlikely an Arab nation with no or little previous experience could outpace Israel, which is already adept at atomics production.
Yeah, well..what made the US the lawful and eternal masters of the known universe?Quote:
Becuase as of right now it hurts US interests .
Nothing. Still, Americans will support American interests above all other interests, and I'm sure that the Dutch will do the same with regards to the interests of their country. That's just common sense. In case of Iran the US interests happen to match the interests of most of the civilized world, which is why most of the civilized world is hostile towards the Iranian nuclear aspirations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Actually, I try to think of the interests of the world. I'm not limiting my view to my own country.
All the communists are going to invade Germany and found the nation of "Marxland" due to the historical roots, displace all your native people by bringing in all the communists in the world to live in our new homeland. If you don't like it, Peoples Republic of China will nuke you, and provide us with constant support. :book2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Then all the Capitalist nations of Europe are quite willing to drive Marxland into the sea.
Oh, alright. Well, good luck with that.
it was at the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Yeah, I said that too. I noted in my previous post that it used to be under the danger of massed Arab-orchestrated offensives, but no longer. In any case, I thought the Israelis were smarter than to lust after fission. Once you get them, you start an arms race, which will inevitably lead to he enemy obtaining them. What is better - two nations with atomics or two nations without?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
And you are awfully calm in this thread, despite my posts which surely would have baited any pro-Israeli individuals... Either you have matured or realised the futility of debating or simply became apathetic, if only for a certain period of time...
well im very tired right now and the high holidays are over, and im really depressed because of that. not in the mood to debate, only want to play guitar.
on topic: now that israel is no longer under mass attack, why should they put themselves in a position that they used to be in by removing the nukes?
How about attempting to discard strongman tactics of intimidation and such with a more reliable tactic of friendship? It worked with Egypt :wink:. [sarcasm]Except that Israel was not the one to initiate it of course - the uncivilised, barbarian, militant Arabs did it, eh? [/sarcasm]Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
To be fair, though, the Egyptian semi-authoritarian rule has always been hostile to radical Islamism and religion in general, no matter how much they try to court favour of the masses by appearing to be religious.
Our nukes mostly. I'm prefectly aware I'm being hypocrictical. I'm also perfectly aware and Iran sans nukes will save allot of lives somewhere down the road.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Of course not. Russia has not only more atomics, in quantity, but also more in the yield. Take the Tsar Bomba, which had a maximum yield of over 100 megatons, but had its uranium tamper replaced with a lead one to reduce its explosive power by half, downgrading it to 50 megatons, but at the same time made Tsar Bomba the cleanest and most efficient fusion or fission armament ever designed and/or tested.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
This was done after the scientists said a 100 megaton bomb would cripple all of Russia with the fallout (which would be equivalent to 25% of all tested nuclear devices in the history of mankind) and the shockwave, which would generate a Richter 10 or worse earthquake if detonated on the ground – the 50 megaton test could have released 7.2 Richter if it was not an airburst…
What would be called a “strategic” fission device in US is “tactical” in USSR/Russia. The largest operational atomic in US is the Titan II at ~2 megatons, which has been recently decommissioned, leaving US with only tactical-grade fusion devices.
But all this is crap, because it does not matter how much of them you have or how high-quality they are. All you need is a sufficient amount to make the enemy think before attacking . That is all. Russia is no more powerful than Israel, UK, or France in terms of its nuclear capabilities. Nor is US.
What really matters, what made US great, is of course the economy. That is all that matters really. With an economy the size of US, you can go from the 1939 100,000 man militia with severely insufficient rifles and no weapons of higher grade than small arms – US did not even possess machineguns, artillery, or tanks in the beginning of WWII. But all it took was some factories to elevate US war machine roughly on par with that of the Greater German Reich or USSR.
War can only be continued with money, and in modern world, the “money” is replaced with the more general word, the “economy”, as money can be inflated or deflated with little obstructions, unlike in the past, where the decreasing of bullion content in coins was a serious offence indicating severe weakness.
However, knowing you, SFTS, you are probably trolling as usual… Although it seems you were serious this time :dizzy2: